Frank J. Kane v. The State of New Jersey, 1916, The right to travel is not the same as driving a car. There is no right to drive a car.Donald S. Miller v. the California Department of Motor Vehicles, 1999, There is no "fundamental right to drive".

Found a supreme court ruling from 1916: "Frank J. Kane v. The State of New Jersey" which upheld the state's right to charge licensing fees for driver's licenses which in turn implies that driving is a privilege, not a right. Of course, IANAL.

To name one: "or when his or her privilege to drive is suspended" from RCW 46.20.342 in Washington state. The assumption in the law is that it is a privilege and not a right. You of course have the right to drive and text on your own property, just not on the roads which are built, owned and operated by the people.

Besides, an iota of reflection will get you to the fact without looking at any laws. There is a real distinction between basic human rights and rights of a citizen. Basic human rights are those which you have by virtue of the fact that you are human. Things like access to food/water/shelter. Freedom to move around. Freedom to own property. Citizen rights are those rights which you have by virtue of being a citizen of some particular country, like the right to vote in a particular election--so a person living in Washington state has no basic human right to vote in a gubernatorial election in Florida. Obviously driving a car is not a right you get simply by virtue of being human. People need to stop overusing the term "basic human right" to mean "whatever I think I should be allowed to do." There are plenty of things that you have the right to do which are not basic human rights.

You have no "basic human right" to drive a car and therefore have no basic human right to drive a car and hold a phone or even, for that matter, to drive a car and talk to the passenger next to you. You are licensed to drive a car, and that entails tacit approval of whatever road & safety regulations currently stand at the time you get behind the wheel. Currently that license does allow you to talk to the passenger next to you, but even if it didn't it wouldn't be rights infringement, because you HAVE NO RIGHT TO DRIVE A CAR. I am all for regulating cell phone use to the point that people cannot hold a phone while driving since a police officer on a parked motorcycle on the side of the road cannot tell the difference between such and texting, and it is far more important to keep people from texting while driving than it is to allow them to idly handle their phones while driving. I think this reasonably extends to Google Glass as well.

"science is all about probing the truths of nature via experimentation"
That is the narrow more recent definition of science. The broad definition has only to do with reliable and reasoned study of an area, which is why mathematics, computer science, library science, political science, etc. are all called sciences. The scientific method based definition is only one type of science.

Dijkstra said something about computer science being as much about computers as astronomy is about telescopes. Programming is a necessary skill for doing computer science (although, that may be somewhat debatable in some areas of computer science, like many areas of theory), but it is not a subset of computer science. Just as operating a telescope is not a subset of astronomy.

Your employer has the right to look at whatever you do with _their_ computers. They cannot come to your home and look at your gmail account or use your company email password to get into your gmail account. This is obviously different. Your gmail account is private in that sense.

I think this comparison should only be made alongside when people are beginning relationships. For instance, perhaps there is a sharp rise in breakups after Valentine's Day because people are feeling sentimental before VD or don't want to be alone and so are more likely to begin a romantic relationship shortly before--couple that with the conventional wisdom that most relationships don't last 5 weeks and it seems obvious that the breakup rate would be highest just a few weeks after Valentine's Day. Or, potentially, you might find that those breaking up around spring break very quickly began new relationships suggesting that they were cutting ties with their SOs prior to spring break so that they can "have a good time" and "meet some new people" on Spring Break.

Who cares? This isn't censorship. They just don't want to get a bunch of complaints from your grandmother when she searches for "penitence" and after hunt-and-pecking "p-e-n-i" gets something that upsets her. You can still search for whatever you want, they just aren't going to automatically guess you mean something dirty because it might offend you greatly if you don't, which would be a PR nightmare. The converse is not true. It doesn't offend anybody (except maybe people who are rabidly-irrational about anything that could possibly be construed as censorship) to get benign results when searching for something dirty as long as they can get to the results by pressing the "Enter" key.